Ever wondered how our moral compass is shaped by more than just harm and fairness? Intrigued about the influence of cultural and evolutionary factors on morality? Dive into the complexities of human nature as we explore the idea of humans being 90% chimp and 10% bee, and discover the profound implications this has on our morality, politics, and religion. Learn how understanding these diverse moral matrices can help foster empathy and cooperation in our increasingly interconnected world.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Imagine the mind as a rider on an elephant, where the rider's job is to guide the elephant. This metaphor captures how our intuitions guide our rational thoughts, especially when it comes to morality. 

Consider these thought-provoking scenarios: a family eats their deceased dog, or a man has private relations with a chicken before cooking it. These stories evoke a visceral reaction of disgust, yet when pressed, many educated Westerners struggle to label them as morally wrong, illustrating how morality isn't solely about harm.

The origins of morality have puzzled thinkers for centuries. In the 1980s, moral psychology was dominated by rationalism, the idea that children develop morality through reasoning about harm and fairness. This approach, propagated by figures like Lawrence Kohlberg, positioned children as "moral philosophers" who evolve through stages of moral understanding as they age.

However, cultural psychology introduced a broader perspective. Jonathan Haidt, during his graduate studies, was guided by Richard Shweder's work in India, which revealed that morality is not just about harm but also about societal norms, like purity and pollution, which are deeply embedded in non-Western cultures. Haidt's cross-cultural research in Brazil and the U.S. found that moral reasoning often follows emotional intuitions—people knew something was wrong but couldn’t always rationalize why.

The research highlighted that morality varies across cultures and social classes. Western cultures emphasize individual rights and harm, while other societies integrate broader social norms into their moral framework. This suggests that morality is not entirely self-constructed through reasoning but is heavily influenced by cultural learning and innate intuitions.

The narrative of morality is a dance between intuition and rationality, shaped by cultural and innate factors. As Haidt explored in his research, understanding morality requires acknowledging the powerful role of emotions and the diverse cultural tapestries that inform our moral compass.

Is Morality Driven More by Intuition than Reason?

One of the key truths in psychology is the conflict within our minds—our rational side often clashes with our emotional side. Ancient thinkers, like the Roman poet Ovid and the philosopher Plato, depicted this struggle through colorful metaphors. Plato, for instance, described a perfect rational soul housed in a body animated by a lesser, irrational soul filled with emotions and desires.

Throughout history, Western philosophy has often elevated reason above emotion, a view shared by thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Lawrence Kohlberg. However, David Hume challenged this, arguing that reason is merely the servant of our passions. Thomas Jefferson offered a balanced view, suggesting that reason and sentiment should co-rule, like the divided Roman Empire.

In the realm of moral psychology, Darwin's theory of evolution provided a framework for understanding morality's roots in emotions like sympathy and the desire for a good reputation. However, the 20th century saw a backlash against nativism due to its misuse in social Darwinism and radical politics.

Edward O. Wilson, a pioneer in sociobiology, faced significant opposition for suggesting that natural selection influences human behavior. Despite the controversy, his work laid the groundwork for understanding the biological basis of morality, which later evolved into the field of evolutionary psychology.

Research by psychologists like Antonio Damasio revealed that emotions are crucial for rational decision-making. Damasio's patients, who lost emotional input due to brain damage, made poor decisions despite having intact reasoning abilities. This supports Hume's view that reasoning requires the guidance of emotions.

Experiments in moral psychology, such as those involving taboo scenarios, showed that people often make moral judgments based on gut feelings and then struggle to justify them rationally. This led to the development of the social intuitionist model, which posits that moral reasoning typically follows intuitive judgments rather than guiding them.

In essence, if you want to change someone's mind on a moral or political issue, you must address their intuitions first. Logical arguments alone are unlikely to persuade if they conflict with deeply held intuitive beliefs. By understanding and appealing to these intuitions, you can foster more meaningful and effective dialogue.

Plato to Hume: The Timeless Tug-of-War Between Reason and Emotion

On February 3, 2007, just before lunch, Jonathan Haidt, the author, realized he was a chronic liar. His wife Jayne had politely requested that he not leave dirty dishes on the counter. Without thinking, Jonathan spun a story involving their baby and elderly dog to excuse his behavior. This realization struck him as he was writing about the three basic principles of moral psychology.

The first principle is "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second," illustrated by a study with Thalia Wheatley. She hypnotized subjects to feel disgust upon seeing certain words. When these words were embedded in moral violation stories, subjects judged the stories more harshly, confirming the social intuitionist model. Surprisingly, even in non-moral scenarios, some subjects still condemned actions based on their gut feelings.

Jonathan saw this principle in action with his wife. Criticized for the dirty dishes, his immediate negative reaction led him to fabricate a justification, blending separate events into a coherent excuse. This mirrored how people rationalize their gut feelings.

Research supports this intuition-first model. People’s brains evaluate situations instantly, often leading to moral judgments before reasoning kicks in. For instance, Robert Zajonc’s experiments showed that mere exposure to something increases our liking of it. Similarly, political and social judgments are often intuitive, as demonstrated by studies on affective priming and the Implicit Association Test.

Our bodies also influence our moral judgments. Disgust, triggered by smells or bitter tastes, leads to harsher moral evaluations. This is evident in studies where people made stricter judgments when exposed to bad odors or after cleaning their hands.

Psychopaths, who lack moral emotions, reason well but don’t feel compassion or guilt, leading to dangerous behaviors. Conversely, infants exhibit the beginnings of moral judgment, preferring helpful individuals over harmful ones, long before they can reason.

Neuroscientific studies show that emotional areas of the brain activate during moral judgments, aligning with Joshua Greene’s work on moral dilemmas. These findings suggest that our moral intuitions are deeply rooted in our brain’s emotional processing.

While intuitions dominate, reasoning can influence them, especially in social contexts. Engaging in friendly discussions or encountering compelling arguments can sway our moral judgments.

In sum, the first principle of moral psychology highlights the dominance of intuitions in our moral reasoning. Though reasoning plays a role, especially in social interactions, our initial reactions often guide our judgments. This understanding sheds light on why we often rationalize our actions and beliefs, prioritizing reputation over absolute truth.

Can We Trust Our Moral Judgments When Intuitions Come First?

Imagine if the gods flipped a coin at your birth. Heads, you’re honest yet misunderstood as a scoundrel. Tails, you’re deceitful but seen as virtuous. Which would you prefer? Plato argued it’s better to be truly virtuous than to merely seem so. In "The Republic," he uses the myth of the ring of Gyges, which grants invisibility, to illustrate that people are only virtuous to avoid the consequences of being caught. 

Socrates contends that justice itself brings happiness, comparing a just person to a harmonious city where everyone plays their part for the common good. In contrast, an unjust city is filled with conflict and exploitation. Socrates argues that just as philosophers should rule a city, reason should rule a person, guiding them toward true virtue.

However, modern research suggests we care more about appearances than reality. William James, a founder of American psychology, proposed that our minds are designed to pursue social goals, like maintaining reputations. This idea is backed by studies showing that people are more systematic and critical in their thinking when they know they’ll be held accountable, but this only applies under specific conditions. Most of the time, we engage in confirmatory thought, trying to justify our existing beliefs rather than seeking the truth.

Phil Tetlock’s research on accountability shows we behave like politicians, constantly justifying our actions to maintain our moral identities. This is evident in everyday life, where much of our reasoning is done to persuade others and ourselves of our righteousness. Our "inner press secretary" works tirelessly to defend our actions, often without our conscious awareness.

Experiments reveal that people cheat when they believe they won’t get caught, but they justify their actions so effectively that they still see themselves as honest. This self-deception is facilitated by our ability to reason—reasoning that often leads us wherever we want to go, especially when it supports our team or group.

Political beliefs, for instance, are influenced more by group identity than self-interest. Studies show that people’s policy preferences are shaped by their social groups rather than personal benefit. This groupish nature leads to polarized opinions and a reluctance to change one’s mind, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

The worship of reason, often found in philosophical and scientific circles, is a delusion. Reasoning is not as noble or reliable as we like to think. Instead, our moral capacities are best understood through intuition, with reasoning serving to justify our intuitive reactions. To foster ethical behavior, we should focus on changing environments and social systems rather than relying solely on education and reasoning.

In essence, our moral thinking is more about navigating social landscapes and maintaining reputations than seeking objective truth. Our reasoning skills are often used to support our pre-existing beliefs and group identities, challenging the idea that reason alone can lead us to moral truth.

Plato, Socrates, and the Psychology of Morality: The Truth Behind Our Virtue

In Jonathan's quest to understand morality, he ventured beyond the confines of academia to the streets of West Philadelphia, interviewing working-class adults for his dissertation. Questions about taboo topics, like eating a pet dog or using a flag as a rag, elicited laughter and puzzled looks from his subjects. They found it baffling that Jonathan, a student from the University of Pennsylvania, couldn't grasp the inherent wrongness of such acts. 

His fellow Penn students, however, were entrenched in the "harm principle" of John Stuart Mill, prioritizing individual rights and harm prevention above all else. This stark difference highlighted the cultural divide between WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) individuals and others.

Cultural psychologists Joe Henrich, Steve Heine, and Ara Norenzayan's work emphasized that WEIRD people are statistical outliers, perceiving the world as a collection of separate objects rather than relationships. This perception difference extends to morality, where WEIRD cultures focus on autonomy, while non-WEIRD cultures emphasize community and divinity.

Inspired by Richard Shweder's research, Jonathan examined moral themes across cultures, identifying three primary ethics: autonomy, community, and divinity. These ethics shape moral systems, from the individualistic focus of Western philosophers like Kant and Mill to the relationship-centered teachings of Confucius.

Jonathan's journey to India further deepened his understanding. Immersed in a society valuing hierarchical and religious norms, he learned to appreciate the ethics of community and divinity. This experience broadened his perspective, allowing him to see the beauty in moral codes emphasizing duty, respect, and purity, even as he recognized their potential for abuse.

This exploration led to the realization that morality is multifaceted, much like taste. Just as our tongues have multiple receptors for different flavors, our minds have moral receptors beyond harm and fairness. By identifying these foundational moral intuitions—care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity—Jonathan believes we can better understand the diverse moral matrices that bind societies together and often blind us to other perspectives.

In sum, Jonathan believes morality extends beyond harm and fairness, encompassing a rich tapestry of ethical concerns shaped by culture and evolution. Understanding this complexity, he believes, can help bridge the divide between different moral worlds, fostering empathy and cooperation in an increasingly interconnected world.

Can Understanding Morality's Cultural Divide Bridge Our Global Differences?

Behind every act of altruism and heroism, some social scientists believe lies selfishness or even stupidity, viewing humans as "Homo economicus," driven solely by self-interest. Such a view makes it easy to model behavior mathematically, but it falls short in explaining the full spectrum of human morality.

The foundations—Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity—are ingrained in human nature. They shape our moral responses and vary across the political spectrum, with liberals and conservatives using them differently.

Care, for example, evolved from the need to protect vulnerable children. It triggers emotional responses to suffering, not just in one's own children but in others as well. This foundation is heavily relied upon by liberals, who often champion causes like animal rights and humanitarian efforts.

Fairness evolved to ensure cooperation without exploitation. It makes us sensitive to acts of cheating and reciprocation. The left often links fairness to equality and social justice, while the right emphasizes proportionality—reward in proportion to contribution.

Loyalty grew from the need to form cohesive coalitions. It binds people to groups and triggers strong responses to betrayal. Conservatives often emphasize patriotism and group loyalty, whereas liberals tend towards universalism.

Authority evolved to maintain social hierarchies, crucial for order and justice. It triggers respect for legitimate authority and aversion to subversion. Conservatives tend to value this foundation more, seeing hierarchical structures as stabilizing.

Sanctity, initially about avoiding pathogens, now extends to moral purity and sacredness. It explains why people invest objects and principles with extreme values. Conservatives often invoke the sanctity of life and marriage, while liberals may focus on environmental purity.

These moral foundations help explain why political ideologies vary and how they connect with voters. Conservatives, using all five foundations, may appeal to a broader moral palate, while liberals focus more on Care and Fairness. Understanding these foundations enriches our comprehension of the diverse moral landscapes within human societies.

Decoding Morality: The Moral Foundations Shaping Liberals and Conservatives

In January 2005, Jonathan Haidt was invited to speak to the Charlottesville Democratic Party about moral psychology after having spent 2004 mentally rewriting John Kerry’s campaign speeches. 

Jonathan's aim was clear: Republicans understand moral psychology better than Democrats. Republicans appeal to the "elephant," or gut instincts, while Democrats target the "rider," or the rational mind. For instance, Republicans' emotional ads, like the infamous Willie Horton ad, effectively tap into moral foundations.

Notably, Bill Clinton's success as a Democrat stemmed from his ability to appeal emotionally to a broad audience, unlike his more cerebral predecessors. Jonathan's message to the Charlottesville Democrats was blunt: Republicans use all five moral foundations—Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity—whereas Democrats focus narrowly on Care and Fairness.

To substantiate his claims, Jonathan collaborated with graduate student Jesse Graham to develop the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). Their research, involving 1,600 subjects, confirmed that conservatives endorse all five foundations equally, while liberals prioritize Care and Fairness.

In 2007, a group of liberal researchers and Jonathan, concerned about political polarization, created YourMorals.org to study moral psychology online. Their findings consistently showed that liberals have a two-foundation morality, while conservatives have a five-foundation morality.

Further, brain wave studies revealed that liberals and conservatives react differently to moral statements, demonstrating that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. When Barack Obama emerged as a Democratic candidate, his initial broad moral appeal waned as he focused more on social justice, failing to maintain a connection with a broader moral palette.

In Jonathan's essay "What Makes People Vote Republican?", he contrasted the liberal vision of society, inspired by John Stuart Mill, with the conservative vision rooted in Emile Durkheim’s ideas of order and tradition. This essay argued that conservatives' broader moral foundations make them more appealing to voters who value tradition and authority.

Jonathan's research also uncovered that while liberals emphasize equality and care, conservatives prioritize proportionality and see fairness in terms of rewards for hard work. This difference explains why rural and working-class Americans often vote Republican; they align with a moral vision that values loyalty, authority, and sanctity alongside care and fairness.

In sum, Democrats need to understand and appeal to a broader moral foundation to connect with voters who prioritize a five-foundation morality over their three. As we move forward, recognizing how moral diversity can divide and bind us is crucial for bridging political divides.

Can Democrats Win Big by Embracing the GOP's Moral Playbook?

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Jonathan felt an unexpected urge to display an American flag on his car. This instinctual response, he later discovered, stemmed from an ancient part of the human brain that rallies us to support our group in times of crisis. This experience highlighted a fundamental aspect of human nature: we are deeply groupish. We love forming teams and working together, and this groupishness has profound implications for our morality, politics, and religion.

Historically, humans have been portrayed as primarily self-interested, driven by the need to look good rather than be good. We often lie, cheat, and justify our actions to maintain our reputations. This behavior aligns with the idea that selfish genes drive our actions. However, this perspective is incomplete. Humans are also inherently group-oriented, a trait that has been essential for our survival and success.

Charles Darwin suggested that tribes with more cooperative and courageous members would outcompete others. This idea, known as group selection, was dismissed by scientists in the 1970s but has since gained support. New evidence shows that groups capable of cooperation and teamwork have evolutionary advantages. This is evident in the behavior of humans who, unlike chimpanzees, can share intentions and work together seamlessly.

Human evolution underwent a significant transformation when our ancestors developed shared intentionality. This ability to collaborate and form collective goals set the stage for the development of complex societies. Over time, cultural innovations and genetic evolution intertwined, driving the creation of social norms, cooperation, and group cohesion.

The concept of gene-culture coevolution explains how cultural practices can influence genetic evolution and vice versa. For example, the ability to digest lactose in adulthood evolved in populations that domesticated cattle. Similarly, group-related adaptations, such as the ability to cooperate and conform to social norms, likely evolved through gene-culture coevolution.

Recent genetic research has shown that human evolution has accelerated in the last 50,000 years, with significant changes occurring during the Holocene era. This period saw rapid cultural and environmental changes, likely driving genetic adaptations that enhanced our ability to live in larger, more complex societies.

In essence, humans are a unique blend of selfish and groupish traits. While individual competition drives much of our behavior, our ability to form cohesive groups has been crucial for our success. This dual nature—90% chimp and 10% bee—helps explain the complex and often contradictory aspects of human morality and behavior. Understanding this balance is key to understanding humanity itself.

From 9/11 to Darwin: Unraveling the Groupish Nature of Human Evolution

In 1941, historian William McNeill discovered the power of "muscular bonding" during his army training, experiencing a profound sense of unity while marching in unison with his peers. This feeling of becoming part of something larger than oneself led McNeill to explore how such synchronization has historically enabled groups, like Greek and Roman armies, to achieve remarkable cohesion and success. This phenomenon isn't just historical—it taps into our very nature.

Humans, it seems, are part chimp, driven by individual competition, and part bee, designed for group cooperation. This "hive switch" allows us to transcend self-interest and lose ourselves in collective joy and purpose. It's a bit like what happens at a rave, as Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh vividly recalls, where the collective energy and synchrony can dissolve personal boundaries, creating a profound sense of unity.

This hive switch is activated in many ways: through the awe of nature, the use of certain substances that induce a communal feeling, or even just by dancing together. Oxytocin, a hormone known for bonding, plays a significant role here, but it works best within groups, not universally. Similarly, our brain's mirror neurons help us empathize with others, especially those within our group.

Corporations and organizations can harness this hive mentality by fostering environments that encourage teamwork and shared identity, rather than individual competition. This approach not only boosts productivity and morale but also creates a more cohesive and satisfied workforce.

While hive psychology can be misused, as seen in the extreme nationalism of fascism, it holds the potential for positive transformation when applied in healthy, diverse, and democratic contexts. Ultimately, happiness and fulfillment come from our connections to others, to our work, and to something greater than ourselves. The hive switch is a testament to our innate duality as both individuals and members of a larger community.

Could the Hive Switch Be the Secret to Tony Hsieh's Success?

Every fall, college campuses across the U.S. transform into arenas of tribal unity, resembling religious rites. At the University of Virginia, students don special attire and immerse themselves in pre-game rituals. 

By game time, the stadium becomes a sea of synchronized chants and shared emotions, echoing the community-building purpose of religious ceremonies described by Durkheim. This collective effervescence transcends the game itself, fostering a sense of belonging and school spirit that benefits the entire community.

This analogy extends to understanding religion not as a mere set of beliefs but as a binding force. While critics like the New Atheists focus on religion's irrationalities and potential for harm, they overlook its role in fostering community and cooperation. Studies show that religious groups often outlast secular ones due to their ability to enforce costly sacrifices, which bind members together.

Religions have evolved culturally, helping groups thrive by instilling trust and cooperation. For instance, Balinese water temples exemplify how religious structures can solve complex social dilemmas without centralized control. This supports Wilson’s view that religions enable collective achievements beyond individual capabilities.

Moreover, religious individuals often display higher levels of generosity and community involvement, suggesting that belonging, rather than belief, fuels moral behavior. This social capital spills over, benefiting even those outside religious communities.

Religion is likened to a moral exoskeleton, offering structure and shared norms that guide behavior. In societies with declining religious influence, there’s a risk of losing this cohesive force, potentially leading to anomie—a state of normlessness.

Ultimately, religion and politics share a fundamental role in binding people into cohesive teams, enabling them to pursue larger goals. However, this same binding can blind individuals to opposing views, a dynamic explored further in political psychology.

College Football: The Modern-Day Religious Rite

In the late 1800s, a Chicago humorist quipped, "Politics ain't beanbag," underscoring the rough nature of political discourse. Fast forward to today, and the divide in American politics seems more entrenched than ever. This polarization isn't just a shift in public opinion but a transformation in Washington's political climate, where cross-party friendships and civility have waned.

The roots of political allegiance run deep, influenced by genes and personal experiences. Identical twin studies reveal that genetics play a significant role in shaping political beliefs, often as much as upbringing. Our brains, shaped by genetics, influence our sensitivity to threat and openness to new experiences, guiding us down liberal or conservative paths.

Liberty and care define the liberal ethos, championing the oppressed and pushing for societal reform. On the other hand, conservatives value stability, viewing change with caution, wary of eroding moral capital—a concept encompassing the social fabric that sustains communities.

The clash between these ideologies is not just about policy but about moral narratives that each side subscribes to. Liberals see a world needing liberation from outdated hierarchies, while conservatives see the need to preserve the institutions that bind us.

Yet, these differences highlight a deeper truth: both sides have valuable insights. Liberals push for government regulation to curb corporate excesses and address societal issues, while conservatives remind us of the importance of preserving the social structures that foster community and cooperation.

As American politics grows increasingly Manichaean, finding common ground becomes crucial. Real change requires structural adjustments, like fostering cross-party interactions and addressing gerrymandering. Ultimately, recognizing that each political "team" has something crucial to contribute could lead to more constructive disagreement and a healthier political landscape.

Can Genetic Predispositions Explain America's Deep Political Divide?

Our moral judgments are deeply rooted in our intuitions, often preceding rational thought. This intuition-first model is evident across cultures, highlighting that morality isn't solely about harm but also involves societal norms like purity and respect. The interplay between intuition and rationality shapes our moral landscape, where emotions significantly guide decisions.

Cultural psychology reveals that moral frameworks differ across societies, with Western cultures emphasizing individual rights and non-Western ones integrating broader social norms. This diversity underscores that morality is influenced by cultural learning and innate intuitions.

Emotional input is crucial, as seen in cases where the absence of it leads to poor decisions. This aligns with the idea that reasoning serves to justify our intuitive reactions rather than leading them.

Our moral foundations, such as Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, vary across the political spectrum, explaining ideological differences. Conservatives tend to engage all five foundations, while liberals focus more on Care and Fairness. This insight helps explain why political ideologies resonate differently with people based on their moral priorities.

Moreover, human behavior is driven by a balance of self-interest and group-oriented traits. Our capacity for cooperation and forming cohesive groups has been essential for survival. This groupish nature, or "hive switch," allows us to experience collective joy and purpose, fostering unity and cooperation.

Religion and politics serve crucial roles in binding people into cohesive teams, though they also have the potential to blind individuals to opposing views. Recognizing the value in different moral and political perspectives is essential for fostering empathy and cooperation in a divided society.

Lastly, the interplay of genetics and personal experiences shapes our political beliefs, influencing our sensitivity to change and stability. Both liberal and conservative ideologies offer valuable insights, and finding common ground requires acknowledging the contributions of each side. Understanding and appealing to people's moral intuitions can lead to more effective dialogue and a healthier political landscape.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

Key Ideas

#1